Petitioner sought review of a judgment granting building number. Court held that seeking occupancy certificate is a legal requirement to verify plan compliance. Found no error apparent on face of record, dismissed review, upheld original directions.
Review petition dismissed; directions of original judgment remain intact.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942
RP.No.272 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 31129/2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.02.2019 IN WP(C) 31129/2014(M) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
ETTUTHENGIL ISMAIL AGED 40 YEARS AL-SAFA, KINAVAKKAL, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM MALABAR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 643
BY ADV. SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY KOTTAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O. KOTTAYAMPOYIL, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 691
2 THE PRESIDENT KOTTAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE, P.O, KOTTAYAMPOLYIL, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 691
3 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 101
BY ADV.
R1 AND 2 - SRI.CIBI THOMAS
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-03-2021, THE COURT ON 04-03-2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No.272 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 31129/2014
2
ORDER
Dated this the 4th day of March 2021
This review petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to review the judgment of this Court dated 21.02.2019 in W.P.(C).No.31129 of 2014, whereby the following directions were issued:-
“ 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, this writ petition is disposed of, leaving open the liberty of the 1st respondent to consider if any adverse consequences is still remaining in respect of the construction carried out by the petitioner and if any occupancy application is pending consideration before the 1st respondent. However, I make it clear that if all the proceedings are complete pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner seeking occupancy and numbering of the building, it shall not be disturbed on any account.”
RP.No.272 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 31129/2014
3
applicant will have to submit an application before the Secretary seeking occupancy certificate, which is a vital requirement enabling the Secretary to identify as to whether the plan and permit is violated or the applicant has violated the building rules while carrying out the construction. The direction given by this Court would clearly show that, it was in accordance with the terms of the provisions of law the direction was issued. However, it is also clear that the interim order passed to provide building number and the building number granted by the Panchayat was directed never to be altered.
Taking into account the above aspect, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case of error apparent on the face of record, so as to review the judgment. Needless to say, the review petition fails, accordingly, it is dismissed. However, I make it clear that all the directions contained in the judgment will remain intact.
Sd/SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE
VPK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the observation in the judgment of 21.02.2019 regarding occupancy certificate application constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record requiring review.
Ettuthengil Ismail
The Secretary Kottayam Grama Panchayat
The President Kottayam Grama Panchayat Committee
The Tahsildar
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
